Update on Experiment to Model and Calibrate Pavement Structural - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

▶
update on experiment to model and calibrate pavement
SMART_READER_LITE
LIVE PREVIEW

Update on Experiment to Model and Calibrate Pavement Structural - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Oct 09, 2022 337 likes •591 views

Update on Experiment to Model and Calibrate Pavement Structural Effects on Vehicle Fuel Economy and GHG Emissions Participants: University of California Pavement Research Center Michigan State University Massachusetts Institute of Technology

slide-1
SLIDE 1

Update on Experiment to Model and Calibrate Pavement Structural Effects on Vehicle Fuel Economy and GHG Emissions

Participants: University of California Pavement Research Center Michigan State University Massachusetts Institute of Technology Concrete Sustainability Hub Oregon State University University of Minnesota Symplectic Engineering Corporation Sponsored by: California Department of Transportation with assistance from Minnesota Department of Transportation

slide-2
SLIDE 2

Phase I Tasks

  • I:1 Identify participating modelers, review models.

– Completed

  • I:2 Identify test sections, measure pavement

characteristics needed by modelers, and other characteristics affecting fuel economy.

– 22 sections identified – Field deflection, IRI and MPD measurements completed twice (cool, hot conditions) – Laboratory shear frequency sweep tests as cross-check on viscoelastic high temp properties – Completed

slide-3
SLIDE 3

Phase I Tasks

  • I:3 Compare modeling results for test sections

– Initial comparison of deflections, energy dissipation, fuel use for example pavements, completed – Back-calculation of elastic and viscoelastic properties for test sections (MSU), completed – Calculations of deflections, energy dissipation, differences in vehicle fuel economy for structural response, roughness, MPD, currently underway, expected completion 1 Dec 2014

  • I:4 Prepare experimental plan for validation of

modeling results: December 2014

  • I:5 Communicate results of Phase I: January 2015
  • I:6 Summarize results of Phase I: January 2015
slide-4
SLIDE 4

Model Approaches

  • UCPRC (implementation of Lyon)

– Viscoelastic energy dissipation in asphalt on elastic underlying layers – 3-D finite element implementation

  • Massachusetts Institute of Technology

– Energy consumption in vehicle due to viscoelastic top layer (wheel rolling up hill calculated with gradient at wheel location in a moving coordinate system) – Viscoelastic beam implementation and elastic subgrade – Intended primarily for network use after calibration with finite element solutions

  • Michigan State University

– Energy consumption in vehicle due to viscoelastic top layer on elastic underlying layers (wheel rolling up hill calculated with average gradient of bowl) – Axisymmetric finite element implementation

slide-5
SLIDE 5

Outside review of models and implementation by

  • L. Khazanovich and S. Weissman, funded by MnDOT
  • Review of

assumptions, implementation

  • Recommendations

– for improving implementation – for future improvements to models

slide-6
SLIDE 6

Parameters for comparison

1 Max deflection at the bottom

  • f the basin

2 Average slope under contact area 3 Dissipated energy in pavement (stress and strain) 4 Power from gradient compared to no gradient from HDM-4 3 Excess fuel consumption 4 Energy from profile

  • r IRI

5 Energy from macrotexture Michigan State University X (calibrate elastic cases w/LET) X X X using Col. 2, 4 results X NCHRP 720 eqtn + simulatio n model X NCHRP 720 eqtn MIT X (not calibrated) not used directly for energy calc in Gen II X not used directly for energy calc in Gen II X X from Gen II model X approach using profile UCPRC X (calibrate elastic cases w/LET) X X X using Col. 3 resluts X NCHRP 720 eqtn NCHRP 720 eqtn

slide-7
SLIDE 7
slide-8
SLIDE 8

Section Structure and Surface Type Approx Htop (mm) GPR/coring Sub grade Length (km) Slope avg IRI MPD PD-01 Concrete (JPCP) 222 Clay 0.94

  • 0.04%

1.16 0.29 PD-02 Concrete (JPCP) (Dowelled) 208 sand 0.63 0.10% 0.97 0.23 PD-03 Concrete (JPCP) 196 Sand 0.75

  • 0.04%

1.17 0.33 PD-04 Concrete (JPCP) 280 Any 0.63 0.17% 3.08 0.36 PD-05 Concrete (CRC) TBD Any 0.75 0.06% 1.15 0.51 PD-06 HMA-O HMA 36 268 Sand 1.19

  • 0.09%

1.56 1.69 PD-07 RHMA-G PCC 146 224 Sand 0.81 0.09% 0.82 1.63 PD-08 HMA-O HMA PCC 35 117 278 Clay 0.38

  • 0.10%

1.54 1.37 PD-10 RHMA-G HMA PCC 86 196 233 Sand 0.81

  • 0.06%

0.97 1.67 PD-11 HMA-O HMA 41 244 Clay 0.63 0.05% 1.22 2.06 PD-12 HMA-O HMA 37 139 Clay 0.63

  • 0.02%

1.32 1.01

slide-9
SLIDE 9

Section Structure and Surface Type Approx Htop (mm) GPR/coring Sub grade Length (km) Slope avg IRI MPD PD-13 HMA 391 Clay 0.63 0.13% 1.37 0.73 PD-14 HMA 233 Clay 0.63

  • 0.49%

3.57 0.70 PD-15 RHMA-O HMA 31 193 Sand 1.13 0.08% 0.95 2.05 PD-16 HMA-G HMA 41 231 Sand 0.63 0.12% 0.97 0.93 PD-17 HMA 210 Any 0.44

  • 0.01%

1.37 0.66 PD-18 RHMA-G HMA 29 226 Sand 0.63

  • 0.08%

0.65 0.85 PD-19 RHMA-G HMA 65 168 Any 0.75 0.01% 0.95 0.84 PD-20 RHMA-G HMA CTB 43 115 217 Clay 0.50

  • 0.02%

1.72 2.13 PD-21 HMA-O HMA CTB 30 124 235 Clay 0.38 1.01% 1.51 1.84 PD-22 RHMA-G HMA CTB 43 246 124 Clay 0.56 0.25% 1.20 0.74 PD-23 HMA CTB 274 146 Sand 0.63

  • 0.11%

0.88 0.80

slide-10
SLIDE 10

Day and night FWD testing

  • Temperature

measured to 200 mm depth in AC for back- calculations

slide-11
SLIDE 11

Lab Testing

  • Shear frequency sweeps on upper layers of AC

sections for comparison with back-calculated values

slide-12
SLIDE 12

Field Testing

  • MPD and MTD from Laser Texture Scanner
slide-13
SLIDE 13

IRI from inertial profiler day and night

  • RoLine laser used on PCC for

IRI

  • Spot laser used on AC for IRI
  • High speed spot laser on AC

for MPD

slide-14
SLIDE 14

Dynamic back- calculations by Michigan State University

  • Back-calculated

multiple points in each section

  • Some divided into

sub-sections

  • Relaxation modulus

Et, complex modulus E*, shift factor

  • No major

differences day vs night

1.00E+02 1.00E+03 1.00E+04 1.00E+05 1.00E+06 1.E-08 1.E-05 1.E-02 1.E+011.E+041.E+07 Relaxation Modulus (psi) Reduced Time (s) FWD14 FWD30 FWD43 FWD67 FWD78 FWD79 FWD92 FWD103

  • 6.00
  • 5.00
  • 4.00
  • 3.00
  • 2.00
  • 1.00

0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 10 20 30 40 50 60 Shift Factor Temperature

aT (Poly) aT (WLF)

slide-15
SLIDE 15

Analysis of initial two simple pavement sections for initial comparisons and for calibration of MIT model

  • Back-calculations to develop master curve from day and night

FWD tests

  • Pavements

– 3 layers all linear elastic, poisson = 0.35 – 3 layers visco elastic surface, poisson = 0.35 one asphalt material master curve

  • Two temperatures (20, 50 C) x two speeds (5, 60 mph)
  • Vehicle information:

– Single wheel, circular or square load, contact pressure = 700 kPa – Load = 5 kN, 20 kN, 40 kN

  • Outcome to report: shape of deflection basin and dissipated

energy for each case

– Total cases: three elastic cases and twelve viscoelastic cases

slide-16
SLIDE 16

Initial DISPLACEMENT COMPARISONS – ELASTIC UCPRC shallow subgrade

0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35

  • 6000
  • 4000
  • 2000

2000 4000 6000

Displacement (mm) Distance (mm)

UCPRC-5kN-5mph MSU-5kN-5mph MIT-5kN-5mph

0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35

  • 6000
  • 4000
  • 2000

2000 4000 6000

Displacement (mm) Distance (mm)

UCPRC-20kN-5mph MSU-20kN-5mph MIT-20kN-5mph

0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35

  • 6000
  • 4000
  • 2000

2000 4000 6000

Displacement (mm) Distance (mm)

UCPRC-40kN-5mph MSU-40kN-5mph MIT-40kN-5mph

Comparison slides prepared by E. Coleri

slide-17
SLIDE 17

Initial DISPLACEMENT COMPARISONS – VISCOELASTIC – 50C – 5 mph UCPRC shallow subgrade

  • 0.1

0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8

  • 6000
  • 4000
  • 2000

2000 4000 6000

Displacement (mm) Distance (mm)

UCPRC-5kN-5mph-50C MSU-5kN-5mph-50C MIT-5kN-5mph-50C

  • 0.1

0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8

  • 6000
  • 4000
  • 2000

2000 4000 6000

Displacement (mm) Distance (mm)

UCPRC-20kN-5mph-50C MSU-20kN-5mph-50C MIT-20kN-5mph-50C

  • 0.1

0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8

  • 6000
  • 4000
  • 2000

2000 4000 6000

Displacement (mm) Distance (mm)

UCPRC-40kN-5mph-50C MSU-40kN-5mph-50C MIT-40kN-5mph-50C

slide-18
SLIDE 18

UCPRC change in subgrade thickness

  • Changed from shallow subgrade used by

Pouget to 5 m thick subgrade to better match semi-infinite subgrades of Michigan State and Layer Elastic Theory

  • MIT using Winkler foundation
slide-19
SLIDE 19

DISPLACEMENT COMPARISONS - ELASTIC

0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07 0.08 0.09 0.1

  • 6000
  • 4000
  • 2000

2000 4000 6000

Displacement (mm) Distance (mm)

UCPRC-5kN-5mph MSU-5kN-5mph MIT-5kN-5mph

0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35

  • 6000
  • 4000
  • 2000

2000 4000 6000

Displacement (mm) Distance (mm)

UCPRC-20kN-5mph MSU-20kN-5mph MIT-20kN-5mph

0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35

  • 6000
  • 4000
  • 2000

2000 4000 6000

Displacement (mm) Distance (mm)

UCPRC-40kN-5mph MSU-40kN-5mph MIT-40kN-5mph

slide-20
SLIDE 20

DISPLACEMENT COMPARISONS – VISCOELASTIC – 50C – 5 mph

  • 0.1

0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8

  • 4000
  • 3000
  • 2000
  • 1000

1000 2000 3000 4000

Displacement (mm) Distance (mm)

UCPRC-20kN-5mph-50C MSU-20kN-5mph-50C MIT-20kN-5mph-50C

  • 0.1

0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8

  • 4000
  • 3000
  • 2000
  • 1000

1000 2000 3000 4000

Displacement (mm) Distance (mm)

UCPRC-40kN-5mph-50C MSU-40kN-5mph-50C MIT-40kN-5mph-50C

  • 0.05

0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35

  • 4000
  • 3000
  • 2000
  • 1000

1000 2000 3000 4000

Displacement (mm) Distance (mm)

UCPRC-5kN-5mph-50C MSU-5kN-5mph-50C MIT-5kN-5mph-50C

slide-21
SLIDE 21

100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900

Displacement (microns)

MSU MIT UCPRC

PEAK DISPLACEMENT COMPARISONS

5 kN 20 kN 40 kN 5 kN 20 kN 40 kN

20 C 50 C

slide-22
SLIDE 22

Excess fuel consumption measurements

  • MIT and MSU are using equivalent gradient to

calculate excess fuel consumption:

  • UCPRC is using strain-stress and phase angle:

1 1

1 100 Equivalent Gradient in % The deflection at position (m)

n i i i i i

d d GR n x GR d x

  • +

=

  • =

´ D = =

å

( )

1 dmax (dmax+

Incremental (m) The number of data points under the contact area ( ,

i i

x x x n x x

+

D =

  • =

radius))

(Pouget et al)

slide-23
SLIDE 23

0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3

Excess fuel for Diesel (mL/km)

MSU MIT UCPRC

EXCESS FUEL CONSUMPTION COMPARISONS – Diesel

5 kN 20 kN 40 kN 5 kN 20 kN 40 kN

20 C 50 C

slide-24
SLIDE 24

Factorial for analysis of results from field test sections

  • Speeds

– 50 km/hr (31.3 mph) , 100 km/hr (61.5 mph)

  • Temperatures

– One temperature at 1/3 depth in the total asphalt layers 30 C and 45 C

  • Factorial

– 3 vehicles x 2 speeds x 2 temperatures x Z structures (Z up to 22, start with 10)

  • Vehicles (use from NCHRP 720 study)

– Medium car, SUV, Heavy truck

slide-25
SLIDE 25

Phase II: assessment of importance and potential empirical calibration

  • Phase II will begin in December 2014
  • Objectives

– A: Using the calibrated models, calculate net annual excess fuel consumption for vehicles, traffic speeds, temperatures, pavement types (flexible, composite, semi-rigid, jointed concrete, continuously reinforced concrete) for California conditions – If results warrant, then: – B: Verify the same models using the results of field measurements on the same sections with instrumented vehicles

  • General approach used by Michigan State for calibration of

HDM4 models for fuel use for macrotexture and roughness (NCHRP 1-45)